Publishing Ethics

Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement:

Editor Roles and Responsibilities

The Editors and/or Editorial Board should:

Review submitted manuscripts.
Keep information about submitted manuscripts confidential.
Disclose any conflicts of interest.
Identify topics for special issues, which they may guest edit.
Evaluate manuscripts only for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
Be responsible for making publication decisions for submitted manuscripts.
Review suspected incidents of plagiarism.
Advise on journal policy and scope.
Attract new authors and submissions.

Editor Responsibilities toward Reviewers:

Assigning papers for review appropriate to each reviewer’s area of interest and expertise.
Establishing a process for reviewers to ensure that they treat the manuscript as a confidential document and complete the review promptly.
Informing reviewers that they are not allowed to make any use of the work described in the manuscript or to take advantage of the knowledge they gained by reviewing it before publication.
Providing reviewers with written, explicit instructions on the journal’s expectations for the scope, content, quality, and timeliness of their reviews to promote thoughtful, fair, constructive, and informative critique of the submitted work.
Requesting that reviewers identify any potential conflicts of interest and asking that they recuse themselves if they cannot provide an unbiased review.
Allowing reviewers appropriate time to complete their reviews.
Requesting reviews at a reasonable frequency that does not overtax any one reviewer.
Finding ways to recognize the contributions of reviewers, for example, by publicly thanking them in the journal; providing letters that might be used in applications for academic promotion; offering professional education credits; or inviting them to serve on the editorial board of the journal.

Author and Corresponding Author Responsibilities

Principles related to authorship with consensus include the following:

Individuals who contributed to the work but whose contributions were not of sufficient magnitude to warrant authorship should be identified by name in an acknowledgements section.
All individuals who qualify for authorship or acknowledgement should be identified. Conversely, every person identified as an author or acknowledged contributor should qualify for these roles.
Individuals listed as authors should review and approve the manuscript before publication.
Editors should require authors and those acknowledged to identify their contributions to the work and make this information available to readers.
The ultimate reason for the identification of authors and other contributors is to establish accountability for the reported work.

Authorship should be limited to:

Individuals who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study.
Identification of authors and other contributors is the responsibility of the people who did the work (the researchers) not the people who publish the work (editors, publishers). Researchers should determine which individuals have contributed sufficiently to the work to warrant identification as an author.
Individuals listed as authors should review and approve the manuscript before publication.
Individuals who contributed to the work but whose contributions were not of sufficient magnitude to warrant authorship should be identified by name in an acknowledgements section.
All individuals who qualify for authorship or acknowledgement should be identified. Conversely, every person identified as an author or acknowledged contributor should qualify for these roles.
Those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors.
Others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project should be acknowledged or listed as contributors.

The corresponding author should:

Ensure that all appropriate co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper.
Give consent to the manuscript submission for publication.
Manage any requests to add, delete or rearrange author names in an article published in an online issue.

The authors should:

The author-editor relationship is founded on confidentiality. Authors should hold all communication between themselves and the journal in confidence. Authors should designate a specific contact for all communication about the manuscript throughout peer review and (if accepted) the publication process. Authors should observe journal policy on communication with external peer reviewers (the policy may vary depending on whether a journal uses masked or non-masked peer review) and should observe journal policy on prepublication embargoes.
Ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and words of others that this has been appropriately cited or quoted. The authors should provide a statement attesting to the originality of the study they have submitted for consideration. Originality is crucial because many journals have limited space and editors may give a low priority to studies that, regardless of scientific accuracy and validity, do not advance the scientific enterprise. Some journals may ask authors to provide copies of reports on other studies (articles, manuscripts, and abstracts) related to the study under consideration.
Copyright Assignment. Authors are usually expected to assign copyright to the journal publishing their study. Assignment of copyright is a legal document in which the authors assign certain rights to the publisher. Upon acceptance of an article, authors will be asked to complete a 'Journal Publishing Agreement'. An e-mail will be sent to the corresponding author confirming receipt of the manuscript together with a 'Journal Publishing Agreement' form or a link to the online version of this agreement.
Secure the necessary reproduction rights with the rights holder for any third-party material (images, digital content, etc.) you have used before submission.
Ensure that they have acknowledged any funding that has contributed to the publication.
Provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access and retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.
NOT in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication.
NOT submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.
Include disclosure of all relationships that could be viewed as presenting a potential conflict of interest.
Promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.
Ensure that the manuscript contains a statement that all procedures comply with relevant laws and institutional guidelines and that the appropriate institutional committee(s) has approved them.
Include a statement in the manuscript that informed consent was obtained for experimentation with human subjects.
Obtain appropriate consents, permissions and releases where an author wishes to include case details or other personal information or images of patients and other individuals.

Peer-review Process

Reviewer responsibilities toward authors:

Providing written, unbiased feedback promptly on the scholarly merits and the scientific value of the work, together with the documented basis for the reviewer’s opinion
Indicating whether the writing is clear, concise, and relevant and rating the work’s composition, scientific accuracy, originality, and interest to the journal’s readers.
Avoiding personal comments or criticism.
Maintaining the confidentiality of the review process: not sharing, discussing with third parties, or disclosing information from the reviewed paper.

Reviewer responsibilities in regards to citations:

Recommending the addition of important or relevant published works that are widely available into the citation list.
Discouraging the citation of unrelated works.
I am alerting the authors on the possible errors or misuse of citations whenever necessary.
Informing the authors on knowledge of cited works that have been updated or retracted.

Reviewer responsibilities toward editors:

Notifying the editor immediately if unable to review promptly and providing the names of potential other reviewers.
Alerting the editor about any potential personal or financial conflict of interest and declining to review when a possibility of a conflict exists.
Complying with the editor’s written instructions on the journal’s expectations for the scope, content, and quality of the review.
Providing a thoughtful, fair, constructive, and informative critique of the submitted work, which may include supplementary material provided to the journal by the author.
Determining scientific merit, originality, and scope of the work; indicating ways to improve it; and recommending acceptance or rejection using whatever rating scale the editor deems most useful.
Noting any ethical concerns, such as any violation of accepted norms of ethical treatment of animal or human subjects or substantial similarity between the reviewed manuscript and any published paper or any manuscript concurrently submitted to another journal which may be known to the reviewer.
Refraining from direct author contact.

Publication Ethics

The Editorial Committee aims to shape the scientific journal environment such as ethical publishing practices, inform those involved in the editorial process, and foster informed decision-making by editors to uphold our publications' integrity. in addition, publishers and editors take reasonable steps to identify and prevent the publication of papers where research misconduct has occurred; in no event shall a journal or its editors encourage such misconduct, or knowingly allow such misconduct to take place; if a journal’s publisher or editors are made aware of any allegation of research misconduct the publisher or editor shall deal with allegations appropriately; the journal should have available guidelines for retracting or correcting articles when needed; and finally publishers and editors should always be willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies when needed.

Ethics on Post-Publication Amendments

Authors may request changes to their published works for several reasons. Such amendments fall into four categories: Erratum, Corrigendum, Retraction, and Addendum.

Erratum – A formal notice of a significant error introduced by the journal during production, which could affect the scientific integrity of the article, or the reputation of the authors or journal.
Corrigendum – A formal notice of a significant error made by the author(s), with potential impact on the publication’s integrity, or the reputation of the authors or journal.
Retraction – A formal notice invalidating an article’s results. All co-authors must sign the retraction, explaining the error and its effect on the conclusions. Retractions may also occur if new information, unavailable at publication, undermines or invalidates the main findings. Readers may request a retraction by notifying the Editor-in-Chief, who will consult reviewers and the authors before making a decision.
Addendum – An official notice adding information or clarification to a published article, often in response to readers seeking elaboration on specific points.

Penalties and Sanctions

The IEM Journal Editorial Board is solely responsible for determining actions in cases of plagiarism or other forms of scientific misconduct, which are considered serious violations of publication ethics. Editors-in-Chief, Editorial Board members, and reviewers are responsible for identifying such cases, which will be handled confidentially.

If unethical conduct is confirmed, the manuscript will be rejected. If already published, the article will be withdrawn. Depending on severity, authors may be barred from submitting to the journal for one to three years. All cases will be evaluated individually, in line with the Journal’s Publication Code of Ethics.

Consequences

For Authors:
Plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, or major omissions are unacceptable. Allegations will be reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief and the Editorial Board. Possible consequences include notification, manuscript rejection, retraction with public notice, submission bans for a defined period, and notification to the authors’ institutions for further action.

For Editorial Board Members:
The journal’s reputation relies on the integrity and fairness of its Editorial Board. Misconduct complaints should be reported to the Editor-in-Chief, who will provide documentation to the Board. Any member found guilty will be removed from their position and subject to the same sanctions applied to authors.

Copyright and Access

Authors who claim ownership of the data being reported, along with the manuscript’s authors, may be asked to sign over certain publication rights to the journal through copyright transfer or a licensing agreement. Authors should be aware and must abide by, the terms of these agreements.

Archiving

The Journal of The Institution of Engineers Malaysia is published online with a frequency of four (4) issues per year. Besides that, special issues of the IEM Journal will be published non-periodically from time to time.

Publisher

IEM as the publisher is committed to ensuring that advertising, reprint or other commercial revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions. In addition, IEM will assist in communications with other journals and/or publishers where this is useful to editors. Finally, IEM will work closely with other publishers and industry associations to set standards for best practices on ethical matters, errors and retractions--and are prepared to provide specialised legal review and counsel if necessary.

Guidelines on the Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) Tools

The IEM Journal recognises that Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools (e.g., ChatGPT, Grammarly, image generation software, statistical assistants) are increasingly used in research and writing.

To ensure transparency, integrity, and accountability, authors are required to follow the guidelines below:

1. Permitted Use of AI

AI tools may be used to support language editing, grammar correction, text summarisation, coding assistance, data visualization, or figure generation.
AI may be used for idea development, literature searching, and improving readability.

2. Disclosure Requirement

Authors must declare any use of AI tools in the manuscript, including the purpose and scope of use.

Example Disclosure:

“Portions of the text were assisted by the use of [AI tool name] for grammar improvement and language refinement. The authors take full responsibility for the content and accuracy of this manuscript.”

3. Responsibility

Authors are fully responsible for the accuracy, originality, and integrity of the content generated with AI tools.
AI cannot replace critical thinking, scholarly judgment, or original contribution from the authors.
All data, references, and results must be verified by the authors.

4. Editorial Policy

Manuscripts will not be rejected solely due to the use of AI tools, provided proper disclosure is made.
Failure to disclose significant AI assistance may be considered a breach of ethical standards and may result in corrective action (e.g., request for revision, or in serious cases, retraction).